Alcohol and Drug Mitigation in Capital Murder Trials: Implications for Sentencing Decisions

Analyses of the impact on sentencing when alcohol and drug‐related mitigation is used in the sentencing phases of capital murder trials is virtually absent from the existing literature. The present study addresses this by exploring the effect of having mitigation with alcohol and drug themes accepted in a large sample (n = 804) of capital murder trials in North Carolina. Logistic regression analyses that include a number of relevant control variables reveal no substantive impacts of having alcohol mitigation accepted by capital murder juries, but drug mitigators that were either accepted or rejected by juries were associated with an increased risk of receiving a death sentence. Possible reasons for the results and their implications are discussed and suggestions are made for further study of the effects of alcohol/drug mitigation in capital trials.     

The intersection of race and gender: an examination of sentencing outcomes in North Carolina

This study examines the intersection of offenders’ race and gender in the sentencing process using data on felony cases sentenced in North Carolina. Analyses examine the likelihood that charges were reduced in severity between initial filing and conviction, the likelihood of imprisonment, and the length of sentence imposed, and test whether race affects punishment similarly for men and women. Results indicate that status characteristics predict both reductions in charge severity and the severity of the final sentence, and that racial disparity is conditional on gender. However, the results are not entirely consistent with predictions derived from the extant literature. Gender significantly predicts case outcomes at each stage, but black men were not uniformly disadvantaged, and black women received the least severe treatment in two out of four analyses. Theoretical implications for the intersection of race and gender in sentencing theories are discussed.     

Examining the prevalence and correlates of a ‘senior citizen discount’ in US federal courts

Few studies focus on age as a factor influencing judicial decision-making, in spite of the widespread use of age as a control variable. Although the limited research to have done so is inconsistent, most scholars agree that age may be race- and/or gender-graded in a manner that produces more severe sentences for certain race–gender–age combinations, especially for young males who are Black or Latino. Less consensus exists with regard to whether older defendants are granted more leniency in the sentencing process and, if so, if the effects of older age are also race- and/or gender-graded. The present study examines this question by examining data from the United States Sentencing Commission. The data presented reveal three noteworthy findings. First, a ‘senior citizen discount’ exists insofar as judges afford more leniency in sentencing to older offenders than their younger counterparts. Second, compared to older males, older females were treated with greater leniency by judges. Finally, whereas Latinos 60 and over were treated with greater severity at the stage of incarceration compared to similarly situated Whites, Blacks received shorter sentence lengths on average. These results are analyzed within the framework of the focal concerns perspective.     

认罪认罚从宽制度中律师有效辩护的实现路径

律师的有效辩护是认罪认罚从宽程序得以正当运行的必要条件,是确保犯罪嫌疑人、被告人认罪认罚的自愿性,帮助其与检察机关进行量刑协商,为其争取最大限度量刑优惠的关键。然而在司法实践中,认罪认罚案件中律师的辩护效果不甚理想。为了实现律师在认罪认罚从宽程序中的有效辩护,需要厘清司法实践中律师有效辩护的现实阻碍,并结合认罪认罚从宽制度所特有的程序机制,通过适当转变律师的辩护策略、完善值班律师制度、建立控辩平等的量刑协商程序以及完善律师辩护权利的救济机制等措施,来推动实现律师在认罪认罚案件中的有效辩护。     

关于“预交罚金”对量刑影响的实证研究

以2014年全国范围内敲诈勒索罪判决书为样本的实证研究发现,预交罚金会对被告人的量刑产生从宽处罚的效果。这种从宽体现在具有预交罚金情节的被告人更可能被判处较轻的刑种、较短的刑期以及适用缓刑。预交罚金不仅违背无罪推定原则和基本的形式逻辑,更会对被告人造成明显的不公,建议最高司法机关明确禁止在判决宣告前预交罚金。     

刑事案件速裁程序局限性及其完善

在公正基础上制度化地解决有限的司法供给与膨胀的刑事法律需求之间的矛盾是现阶段刑事司法改革的必然要求,基于此,我国在《刑事诉讼法》简易程序的基础上对刑事案件速裁程序进行试点,但是试点中的一些问题阻碍了试点的预期效果的实现。本文分别从侦查机关、公诉机关、被告人、辩护人、审判机关角度分析阻碍速裁程序适用的原因,提出设立非法律因素上诉甄别程序,从而节约二审司法资源、确立司法权威;同时提出构建多层次的刑事司法程序,以改变现行刑事诉讼程序体系扁平的现状。     

What Executioners Can—and Cannot—Teach Us About the Death Penalty

Those who work with the condemned often come to reject the death penalty not only in individual cases, and not only on the ground that it is poorly implemented. They tend to conclude that the punishment is wrong. I argue that the perspective of the executioner helps illuminate the debate about whether to abolish capital punishment, and that indeed the perspective of those who work with the condemned raises the troubling possibility that support for the death penalty can survive only at a great remove. Jeffrie Murphy has also argued that the executioner’s perspective can be useful, but I contend that Murphy asks the wrong question. His essay considers whether an executioner may, under some circumstances, take pride in his work. The better question is whether anyone ought to be asked to do such work. On this latter question, the perspective of the executioner sheds important light. Like Murphy, I draw on works by and about Albert Pierrepoint, the “last hangman” of Britain. I also draw on the perspectives of numerous executioners, wardens, chaplains, and other death row personnel. I argue that their perspectives offer a powerful argument against the main rationale for the death penalty: retribution. If retribution is keyed to the offender’s character as well as his wrongful act, then post-conviction character ought to matter. The executioners’ accounts share a common theme: that death row inmates change over time and hold the potential for redemption.     

Evaluating the Role of Race in Sentencing: An Entropy Weighting Analysis

The current study builds on prior research examining racial disparities in sentencing. Entropy weighting is introduced as a new method for estimating racial disparities that has several advantages over traditionally used methods. Entropy weighting is compared to regression and propensity score methods in estimating Black-White disparities in incarceration sentences. Although all methods find non-significant racial disparities in incarceration sentences, regression and propensity score methods underestimate disparities in incarceration sentence lengths. Entropy weighting provides comparable estimates to propensity score methods, but assures that the samples are identical on all covariates aside from race. The method offers researchers a useful and flexible approach for estimating racial disparities in criminal justice, and its use may lead to alternative conclusions about the size and presence of racial disparities in sentencing.     

JUDICIAL ROTATION AS CENTRIPETAL FORCE: SENTENCING IN THE COURT COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA*

Courts as communities theory emphasizes the sentencing differences that can arise between localities within a single state. The results of published studies have highlighted how local differences emerge based on informal sociological and political processes defined by the communities perspective. The findings from recent quantitative studies from South Carolina have revealed notably less county variation in sentencing than has been observed elsewhere. I use qualitative interviews with 13 South Carolina trial judges to investigate sentencing processes and to shed light on these findings. The interviews explore the state's legal structure and culture, including the practice of circuit rotation in which judges travel among counties holding court. The results suggest rotation serves as a centripetal force of sentencing culture, homogenizing what might otherwise be a more varied collection of county‐specific norms. Rotation leads to increased uniformity through judge shopping and the cross‐pollination of ideas and norms. Defendants can strategically judge shop and plead in front of a lenient judge—a process that gives rise to the term “plea judge,” which is a label for the most lenient judges who sentence a large number of defendants. Rotation also increases the interactions among judges and prosecutors, expanding networks and grapevines, and leading to cross‐pollination and the sharing of ideas.     

The Unintended consequences of sentencing reforms: Using social chain theory to examine racial disparities in Female imprisonment

The current study uses social chain theory to examine the potential unintended effects of sentencing reforms on racial disparities in female imprisonment. Our analysis measures changes in the relative odds of Black to White female imprisonment using the Relative Rate Index (RRI) through panel regression modeling on 40 states from 1983 to 2008. Our final models indicate that four types of sentencing reforms had unintended perverse effects on racial disparities in prison admissions while Truth in Sentencing laws increased racial disparities in time-served. Eighteen combinations of sentencing reforms also significantly impacted disparities. Theoretical and policy implications are also discussed.